RE: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Dennis E. Hamilton-5
I think it is clear, from a continuing [hidden email] thread, that there is no cheese to be found developing derivative AOO documentation from the original OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation that was produced outside of OpenOffice.org itself.

I wonder if a more vibrant and experienced avenue might be found by consulting the Apache OpenOffice Community Forum,
<https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/>.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 14:58
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

[orcmid] [ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Keith N. McKenna
On 1/9/2021 12:16 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:

> I think it is clear, from a continuing [hidden email] thread, that there is no cheese to be found developing derivative AOO documentation from the original OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation that was produced outside of OpenOffice.org itself.
>
> I wonder if a more vibrant and experienced avenue might be found by consulting the Apache OpenOffice Community Forum,
> <https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/>.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 14:58
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort
>
> [orcmid] [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Actually Dennis that may not be true. According to the the Legal FAQ
site https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL the Gnu
Public License version 3 is compatible with ALv2.

Regards
Keith



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

F Campos Costero
Quoting from the ASF Category X page [ASF 3rd Party License Policy
(apache.org) <https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x>] :

*The following licenses may NOT be included within Apache products:*


   - *Not OSD-compliant:*
      - *Binary Code License (BCL)*
      - *Intel Simplified Software License*
      <https://software.intel.com/en-us/license/intel-simplified-software-license>
      - *JSR-275 License*
      <https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/jsr-275/blob/0.9.3/LICENSE.txt>
      - *Field of use restrictions:*
         - *Microsoft Limited Public License*
         <https://www.openhub.net/licenses/mslpl>
         - *Amazon Software License (ASL)* <https://aws.amazon.com/asl/>
         - *Java SDK for Satori RTM license*
         <https://github.com/satori-com/satori-rtm-sdk-java/blob/master/LICENSE>
         - *Redis Source Available License (RSAL)*
         <https://redislabs.com/community/licenses/>
         - *Booz Allen Public License*
         <http://boozallen.github.io/licenses/bapl>
      - *Non-commercial licenses:*
         - *Creative Commons Non-Commercial
         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Non-commercial_licenses>
variants*
         - *Sun Community Source License 3.0*
         <http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/SCSL3.0.rtf>
      - *Places restrictions on larger works:*
      - *GNU GPL 1, 2, 3
      <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php>*


*...*


Regards,

Francis


On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 2:41 PM Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 1/9/2021 12:16 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> > I think it is clear, from a continuing [hidden email] thread, that there is
> no cheese to be found developing derivative AOO documentation from the
> original OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation that was produced outside of
> OpenOffice.org itself.
> >
> > I wonder if a more vibrant and experienced avenue might be found by
> consulting the Apache OpenOffice Community Forum,
> > <https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/>.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 14:58
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Cc: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort
> >
> > [orcmid] [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> Actually Dennis that may not be true. According to the the Legal FAQ
> site https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL the Gnu
> Public License version 3 is compatible with ALv2.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Carl Marcum
In reply to this post by Keith N. McKenna
Hi Keith,

On 1/9/21 4:40 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> On 1/9/2021 12:16 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
>> I think it is clear, from a continuing [hidden email] thread, that there is no cheese to be found developing derivative AOO documentation from the original OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation that was produced outside of OpenOffice.org itself.
>>
>> I wonder if a more vibrant and experienced avenue might be found by consulting the Apache OpenOffice Community Forum,
>> <https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/>.
>>
>>   - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 14:58
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Cc: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort
>>
>> [orcmid] [ ... ]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
> Actually Dennis that may not be true. According to the the Legal FAQ
> site https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL the Gnu
> Public License version 3 is compatible with ALv2.
>
> Regards
> Keith

I might be wrong but I'm reading that statement as ALv2 is compatible
with GPL v3 not the other way around.
It is a statement quoted from the FSF site.

Best regards,
Carl


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Keith N. McKenna
On 1/9/2021 6:20 PM, Carl Marcum wrote:

> Hi Keith,
>
> On 1/9/21 4:40 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> On 1/9/2021 12:16 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
>>> I think it is clear, from a continuing [hidden email] thread, that there
>>> is no cheese to be found developing derivative AOO documentation from
>>> the original OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation that was produced
>>> outside of OpenOffice.org itself.
>>>
>>> I wonder if a more vibrant and experienced avenue might be found by
>>> consulting the Apache OpenOffice Community Forum,
>>> <https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/>.
>>>
>>>   - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 14:58
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Cc: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort
>>>
>>> [orcmid] [ ... ]
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>> Actually Dennis that may not be true. According to the the Legal FAQ
>> site https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL the Gnu
>> Public License version 3 is compatible with ALv2.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>
> I might be wrong but I'm reading that statement as ALv2 is compatible
> with GPL v3 not the other way around.
> It is a statement quoted from the FSF site.
>
> Best regards,
> Carl
Carl;

I was a bit confused myself when I first read it, but why post it on an
ASF FAQ site if it doesn't grant reciprocity?

Regards
Keith



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Dave Fisher-2


Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 9, 2021, at 3:34 PM, Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 1/9/2021 6:20 PM, Carl Marcum wrote:
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>>> On 1/9/21 4:40 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2021 12:16 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
>>>> I think it is clear, from a continuing [hidden email] thread, that there
>>>> is no cheese to be found developing derivative AOO documentation from
>>>> the original OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation that was produced
>>>> outside of OpenOffice.org itself.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if a more vibrant and experienced avenue might be found by
>>>> consulting the Apache OpenOffice Community Forum,
>>>> <https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/>.
>>>>
>>>>   - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 14:58
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Cc: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort
>>>>
>>>> [orcmid] [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>> Actually Dennis that may not be true. According to the the Legal FAQ
>>> site https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL the Gnu
>>> Public License version 3 is compatible with ALv2.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>
>> I might be wrong but I'm reading that statement as ALv2 is compatible
>> with GPL v3 not the other way around.
>> It is a statement quoted from the FSF site.

It is not compatible because Category X licenses are not permissive in the ways that do not fit the Foundations mission. Reciprocity or field of use restrictions in licenses are examples. From the FSF POV that is not an issue. This is the root of why AOO cannot make use of LO code unless specifically relicensed, but the other way around is fine.

However updating documents from our wiki on our wiki is not part of any release. The situation was known during Incubation and allowed to continue. Jim may recall if this is documented somewhere accessible to the PMC.

Regards,
Dave

>>
>> Best regards,
>> Carl
>
> Carl;
>
> I was a bit confused myself when I first read it, but why post it on an
> ASF FAQ site if it doesn't grant reciprocity?
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Andrea Pescetti-2
In reply to this post by Keith N. McKenna
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL
> I was a bit confused myself when I first read it, but why post it on an
> ASF FAQ site if it doesn't grant reciprocity?

Because, if I recall correctly, back at the time the two Foundations
worked together in order to achieve compatibility (which of course can
only go one way: the GPL puts more restrictions, so it's impossible to
use GPL code in Apache releases).

And by the way, the entire GPL discussion is useless since the wiki
contents will never go in a release anyway, as Dave pointed out. So
people touting the "compatibility" are misunderstanding or trolling.

Fact is, unless one has something personal against other open-source
licenses, people can perfectly work on documentation that is not under
ALv2 (or that is under ALv2 only for the new sections) on the wiki.
Unlike other Foundations, the ASF is rather liberal, or unopinionated,
about other licenses, provided the deliverables are never part of a
release; we never included user guides with releases, so I think we are
fine and I agree with the "narrow" interpretation of the word "release"
as defined in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-552

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Dave Fisher-3
Hi Keith,

If documentation is being moved to Gitbox/GitHub then we should use a new repository. OpenOffice-Docs or something else?

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL
>> I was a bit confused myself when I first read it, but why post it on an
>> ASF FAQ site if it doesn't grant reciprocity?
>
> Because, if I recall correctly, back at the time the two Foundations worked together in order to achieve compatibility (which of course can only go one way: the GPL puts more restrictions, so it's impossible to use GPL code in Apache releases).
>
> And by the way, the entire GPL discussion is useless since the wiki contents will never go in a release anyway, as Dave pointed out. So people touting the "compatibility" are misunderstanding or trolling.
>
> Fact is, unless one has something personal against other open-source licenses, people can perfectly work on documentation that is not under ALv2 (or that is under ALv2 only for the new sections) on the wiki. Unlike other Foundations, the ASF is rather liberal, or unopinionated, about other licenses, provided the deliverables are never part of a release; we never included user guides with releases, so I think we are fine and I agree with the "narrow" interpretation of the word "release" as defined in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-552
>
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Keith N. McKenna
On 1/11/2021 1:04 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Keith,
>
> If documentation is being moved to Gitbox/GitHub then we should use a new repository. OpenOffice-Docs or something else?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone

OpenOffice-Docs sounds good to me. The only question is how we structure
it. I am very new to GitHub so that I could use some help on what would
be the most appropriate method would be.I had envisioned doing it by
software version with a Review and Published branch under each.

Regards
Keith

>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL
>>> I was a bit confused myself when I first read it, but why post it on an
>>> ASF FAQ site if it doesn't grant reciprocity?
>>
>> Because, if I recall correctly, back at the time the two Foundations worked together in order to achieve compatibility (which of course can only go one way: the GPL puts more restrictions, so it's impossible to use GPL code in Apache releases).
>>
>> And by the way, the entire GPL discussion is useless since the wiki contents will never go in a release anyway, as Dave pointed out. So people touting the "compatibility" are misunderstanding or trolling.
>>
>> Fact is, unless one has something personal against other open-source licenses, people can perfectly work on documentation that is not under ALv2 (or that is under ALv2 only for the new sections) on the wiki. Unlike other Foundations, the ASF is rather liberal, or unopinionated, about other licenses, provided the deliverables are never part of a release; we never included user guides with releases, so I think we are fine and I agree with the "narrow" interpretation of the word "release" as defined in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-552
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>


signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

Peter Kovacs-3

On 11.01.21 20:58, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> On 1/11/2021 1:04 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> If documentation is being moved to Gitbox/GitHub then we should use a new repository. OpenOffice-Docs or something else?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
> OpenOffice-Docs sounds good to me. The only question is how we structure
> it. I am very new to GitHub so that I could use some help on what would
> be the most appropriate method would be.I had envisioned doing it by
> software version with a Review and Published branch under each.

I like this approach.

>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL
>>>> I was a bit confused myself when I first read it, but why post it on an
>>>> ASF FAQ site if it doesn't grant reciprocity?
>>> Because, if I recall correctly, back at the time the two Foundations worked together in order to achieve compatibility (which of course can only go one way: the GPL puts more restrictions, so it's impossible to use GPL code in Apache releases).
>>>
>>> And by the way, the entire GPL discussion is useless since the wiki contents will never go in a release anyway, as Dave pointed out. So people touting the "compatibility" are misunderstanding or trolling.
>>>
>>> Fact is, unless one has something personal against other open-source licenses, people can perfectly work on documentation that is not under ALv2 (or that is under ALv2 only for the new sections) on the wiki. Unlike other Foundations, the ASF is rather liberal, or unopinionated, about other licenses, provided the deliverables are never part of a release; we never included user guides with releases, so I think we are fine and I agree with the "narrow" interpretation of the word "release" as defined in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-552
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>
--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]